A few words and pictures for those who are or would like to be "expert" at dry fly fishing on rivers.

Sandbagged!

Photograph by Steve Barnett

Sunday, 5 June 2011

James Ogden Day - Remembering a Genius

Today was James Ogden Day. On June 5th 1865 he proved to the Duke of Rutland's Steward (Robert Nesfield) that his artificial floating flies would "kill during the Drake". From then on the rule was made, for the first time anywhere in the world, that on the Haddon Estate single artificial floating fly only was to be used, making the very first dry fly only fishery.

Ogden was a brilliant innovator and astute business man. As well as creating the first flies designed specifically to float, he created the Invicta, introduced a creel strengthened so that a man could sit on it to fish and so keep low and out of sight from the fish, devised and sold folding landing nets that could not tangle and (my favourite) he introduced the idea of using a short fly rod, instead of the customary 11ft to 16ft rods that were normal for fly fishing in those days.

Today I used one of his rods from 1880, it is 8ft long in built cane and is called a "Multum in Parvo" roughly meaning "much in little". The first fish today was a nice little brown trout that Ogden would have been familiar with. The second he would not have been familiar with. It was a wild rainbow trout that had the 130 year old cane hooped over for a few hectic moments.

All in all, James Ogden Day turned out to be a cracking day for fly fishing and his old rod (and reel) were a joy to use. (Well the rod was, the reel was terrible...)

10 comments:

The dry fly only rule is an interesting one. What does one do when the fish are quite plainly feeding, but not right on the surface? In my book, if it floats, it's a dry fly, but where does that leave emergers/dry nymphs etc??

Dry fly to me is a method of fishing rather than a set of rules to try and get round. the dry fly only rule on a fishery, to me, means that it is not acceptable to go below the surface of the water after the fish. They are in sanctuary so the angler must use flies that are on the surface rather than under it. Some flies penetrate the meniscus. To me, if more than half of the fly is under the meniscus then that is not acceptable if the rule of the fishery is "dry fly only".

Guy the rule was made to stop anglers using bait, especially live mayflies during the drake. At the time it was made no one could know what effect it would have on the river. Fortunately the effect is very beneficial.

Trout Magee you can read about James Ogden on page two of this newsletter from the Peacock Hotel at Rowsley

To me the dry fly rule was a means of limiting the number of fish "taken" from the river by fishing the live Drake. The problem is that nothing actually lives on the surface, unless you think of waterboatmen, the "fly" is either hatching out of the river or going back , laying eggs and dying on the water. There is as always in my opinion, a degree of inverted snobbery associated with the dry fly rule with the wets and nymphs deemed to be "coarse". Whilst this might be the case I still prefer to see a fish rise to a dry and take, rather that watch the minicon twitch.Perhaps as we get older and wiser, the "art" of fishing supercedes just catching fish?

I suppose it is possible that on some waters you might find some sort of snobbery associated with dry fly fishing. I can't help feeling that this old accusation comes from those who dislike the idea of a "rule" limiting the manner in which fish may be fished for on a particular water and so they accuse dry fly anglers of being snobs. Certainly, by the Peak District rivers where it all started, you would be hard pressed to find anyone being snobbish about dry fly fishing. It is a joyful and effective way to spend a day hunting our quarry and it just so happens to deliver some very beneficial and protective side-effects to the rivers and their inhabitants.

Is it snobbish to strictly adhere to the rules of a dry fly fishery? Or is it simply the honourable maintenance of personal standards? I think it would be snobbish to regard other methods as coarse and low status. Where the rules permit other methods, who could possibly object to folk using them?

In 19th Century USA, Thaddeus Norris and later on, Theodore Gordon, pioneered the use of the dry fly with great success. I'm pretty sure neither of them did this for snobbish reasons either. I reckon they started fishing the dry fly for the same reasons James Ogden began his experiments in 1839, it is effective and it's great fun!

Thanks for this post, but I still don't get why the rule was made. Was it to give the fish some respite from fishermen? Was it considered more sporting, more of a challenge to use a dry fly? If it was the latter, was it because fishermen were using bait commonly? Sorry if the answer to the question is obvious to some, it is not to me! I have no knowledge of fishing practices during these times. Lovely images by the way, Yours Guy By Luddite on James Ogden Day - Remembering a Genius on 06/06/11

There seem to be 2 anonymouses! I posted the first one, and thanks for your response. I suppose in the end it's how one responds to what the fish are doing at the time. In that regard, I'd be very interested in your take on my experiences last night on the Dove. Several large fish were rising in a deepish pool. They were coming up almost vertically, often coming right out of the water. They would come up and inspect and reject floating offerings - dun/emerger/spinner. One was on briefly from a deeper-fished nymph. How might I have been more effective??